Sometimes ostensibly weaker language is viscerally stronger

For example: two guys are moving palettes off a truck with a forklift; a palette slips off the forklift and crushes a third worker.


One guy says to the other, "Man, ________________."

Which is stronger?

A. Man, that's fucked up.
B. Man, that's messed up.

In my formative years, it was B. Stronger language was reserved for smaller inconveniences, which made it more common and less impactful.

Language is as language does; it is a set of conventions shared by a speech community that agrees on the rules and exceptions. There is no right or wrong. Language is the clearest example I know of that demonstrates arbitrary convention used to organize human activities. It is also the clearest example I know of that demonstrates how arbitrary convention can be elevated to nearly divine status (and perhaps not nearly, but precisely, if you consider the Tower of Babel story).

Language is so closely integrated into everything we are and do, some linguists believe it confines or constrains our perception as effectively as our five senses limit our consumption of the physical world. I am inclined to agree, which is why I won’t read a book in translation to enjoy its literary merit. I will read it to understand structure, content, context, etc, but there is no way I nor anyone else can expect to comprehend the Aeneid, eg, as it was understood by those who listened to it at or around the time it was composed.

Indeed, there are gradations of comprehension/appreciation so fine, they range from the example above down to a book written in my own language only a generation ago. Who now can fully comprehend Studs Turkel’s The Good War➚who was not there? Or over here with a dad or a brother over there?

Please don’t mistake this as justification for not trying to understand a perspective rooted in another time or language. Let’s be patient with what we don’t fully understand and allow it more time, scrutiny, and tolerance.